Schoolgirl Yashika Bageerathi is expected to be deported on Mother's Day alone to Mauritius

A Palmers Green girl has received heartbreaking news that she is to be deported to Mauritius on Mothers Day alone.

Yashika Bageerathi, 19, of Fox Lane, was due to be deported on Tuesday alone back to Mauritius but was given a lifeline after it was claimed that British Airways refused to let her board the flight.

The "model" student was then taken back to Yarl’s Wood detention centre in Bedfordshire where it was revealed on Wednesday that her mother Sowbhagyawatee, 38, had also been refused asylum.

However, it has now emerged that Yashika will be deported back to Mauritius alone on Mothering Sunday, March 30 at 5.30pm.

The news comes on a day when students of Oasis Academy Hadley in Ponders End, who started the Fight for Yashika campaign, have been delivering letters to the Home Office, Department of Education, Ministry of Justice and 10 Downing Street.

Deputy principal Zoe Thompson has said that the whole school is "heartbroken".

She said: "We are all absolutely heartbroken by this news. The send her home alone on mothers day is absolutely disgraceful.

"Our students have been working so hard today and this is what has happened."

Head of Sixth Form Sarah Hamilton has been with students outside the Enfield Borough Council Civic Centre in Silver Street, Enfield, and said she is "appalled" by the latest news.

Promoted stories

She said: “This is terrible news and I am appalled by the Home Office’s decision. Teresa May said that she could not intervene in individual cases but we know she has done it before and she should be doing it again.

“140,000 people have signed the petition, the fastest growing online petition in history and the government needs to take notice of this.

Courage Emeka, 17, a close friend of Yashika, said: “She would always be helping out around school doing one to one lessons with other students and she is very thankful of what we are doing. If she could, she would thank every person who signed the petition individually.”

Share article

Cabinet member for leisure and young people Councillor Bambos Charalambous collected letters from students and said the treatment of Yashika has been "barbaric".

He said: “I have been following the situation and her treatment has been barbaric and we have asked for her to review her application.”

Promoted Stories

Comments (30)

Schoolgirl Yashika Bageerathi is expected to be deported on Mother's Day alone to Mauritius

Andy_Pagin says...3:24pm Fri 28 Mar 14

Apart from having done a particularly good job of manipulating the media, what's so special about this family of failed asylum seekers?

Apart from having done a particularly good job of manipulating the media, what's so special about this family of failed asylum seekers?Andy_Pagin

Apart from having done a particularly good job of manipulating the media, what's so special about this family of failed asylum seekers?

Score: 8

Enfieldian14 says...7:45pm Fri 28 Mar 14

I've certainly been feeling very uncomfortable about this campaign. The campaign appears to be saying that the girl is a good student and therefore is more deserving of staying than someone who is not? Really? Either the family are genuinely in fear for their safety (and it has been deemed that they are not) or they are not. These should be the only criteria for deciding who stays and who goes back to their own country. Reminds of the outcry when an average singer was told she was being deported.

I've certainly been feeling very uncomfortable about this campaign. The campaign appears to be saying that the girl is a good student and therefore is more deserving of staying than someone who is not? Really?
Either the family are genuinely in fear for their safety (and it has been deemed that they are not) or they are not. These should be the only criteria for deciding who stays and who goes back to their own country.
Reminds of the outcry when an average singer was told she was being deported.Enfieldian14

I've certainly been feeling very uncomfortable about this campaign. The campaign appears to be saying that the girl is a good student and therefore is more deserving of staying than someone who is not? Really? Either the family are genuinely in fear for their safety (and it has been deemed that they are not) or they are not. These should be the only criteria for deciding who stays and who goes back to their own country. Reminds of the outcry when an average singer was told she was being deported.

Score: 9

richardamullens says...6:54am Sat 29 Mar 14

To all the UKIP supporters here. Just as you don't want to be ruled by Brussels, the community of the school and a very large number of supporters seems not to want to be ruled by a xenophobic and unfeeling Home Office whose only interest is the number of immigrants in the country with no regard to their value to Britain.

To all the UKIP supporters here.
Just as you don't want to be ruled by Brussels, the community of the school and a very large number of supporters seems not to want to be ruled by a xenophobic and unfeeling Home Office whose only interest is the number of immigrants in the country with no regard to their value to Britain.richardamullens

To all the UKIP supporters here. Just as you don't want to be ruled by Brussels, the community of the school and a very large number of supporters seems not to want to be ruled by a xenophobic and unfeeling Home Office whose only interest is the number of immigrants in the country with no regard to their value to Britain.

Score: -10

Kim79my says...8:23am Sat 29 Mar 14

I am neither a UKIP supporter or a Xenophobe but I am someone who understands the immigration rules. The asylum process is very thorough. It is not only the Home Office who have stated that she does not qualify to stay here but also two Judges, who will be very experienced in Immigration law. She does not qualify for Asylum. If her mother does not want her daughter to return alone, then I'm sure that the Home office would be more than willing to help them all travel back together. It's lovely she has made lots of friends but that really isn't a reason for someone to be allowed to stay in a country they have no legal right to. I would also be grateful if people would stop using the word Deportation. She is not being deported she is being removed. Once removed, she would be able to apply to return to this country. If she was deported she would not.

I am neither a UKIP supporter or a Xenophobe but I am someone who understands the immigration rules.
The asylum process is very thorough. It is not only the Home Office who have stated that she does not qualify to stay here but also two Judges, who will be very experienced in Immigration law.
She does not qualify for Asylum. If her mother does not want her daughter to return alone, then I'm sure that the Home office would be more than willing to help them all travel back together.
It's lovely she has made lots of friends but that really isn't a reason for someone to be allowed to stay in a country they have no legal right to. I would also be grateful if people would stop using the word Deportation. She is not being deported she is being removed. Once removed, she would be able to apply to return to this country. If she was deported she would not.Kim79my

I am neither a UKIP supporter or a Xenophobe but I am someone who understands the immigration rules. The asylum process is very thorough. It is not only the Home Office who have stated that she does not qualify to stay here but also two Judges, who will be very experienced in Immigration law. She does not qualify for Asylum. If her mother does not want her daughter to return alone, then I'm sure that the Home office would be more than willing to help them all travel back together. It's lovely she has made lots of friends but that really isn't a reason for someone to be allowed to stay in a country they have no legal right to. I would also be grateful if people would stop using the word Deportation. She is not being deported she is being removed. Once removed, she would be able to apply to return to this country. If she was deported she would not.

Score: 10

richardamullens says...8:31am Sat 29 Mar 14

Kim79my wrote…

I am neither a UKIP supporter or a Xenophobe but I am someone who understands the immigration rules. The asylum process is very thorough. It is not only the Home Office who have stated that she does not qualify to stay here but also two Judges, who will be very experienced in Immigration law. She does not qualify for Asylum. If her mother does not want her daughter to return alone, then I'm sure that the Home office would be more than willing to help them all travel back together. It's lovely she has made lots of friends but that really isn't a reason for someone to be allowed to stay in a country they have no legal right to. I would also be grateful if people would stop using the word Deportation. She is not being deported she is being removed. Once removed, she would be able to apply to return to this country. If she was deported she would not.

Yes, it seems that you know the price of everything and the value of nothing

[quote][p][bold]Kim79my[/bold] wrote:
I am neither a UKIP supporter or a Xenophobe but I am someone who understands the immigration rules.
The asylum process is very thorough. It is not only the Home Office who have stated that she does not qualify to stay here but also two Judges, who will be very experienced in Immigration law.
She does not qualify for Asylum. If her mother does not want her daughter to return alone, then I'm sure that the Home office would be more than willing to help them all travel back together.
It's lovely she has made lots of friends but that really isn't a reason for someone to be allowed to stay in a country they have no legal right to. I would also be grateful if people would stop using the word Deportation. She is not being deported she is being removed. Once removed, she would be able to apply to return to this country. If she was deported she would not.[/p][/quote]Yes, it seems that you know the price of everything and the value of nothingrichardamullens

Kim79my wrote…

I am neither a UKIP supporter or a Xenophobe but I am someone who understands the immigration rules. The asylum process is very thorough. It is not only the Home Office who have stated that she does not qualify to stay here but also two Judges, who will be very experienced in Immigration law. She does not qualify for Asylum. If her mother does not want her daughter to return alone, then I'm sure that the Home office would be more than willing to help them all travel back together. It's lovely she has made lots of friends but that really isn't a reason for someone to be allowed to stay in a country they have no legal right to. I would also be grateful if people would stop using the word Deportation. She is not being deported she is being removed. Once removed, she would be able to apply to return to this country. If she was deported she would not.

Yes, it seems that you know the price of everything and the value of nothing

Score: -10

Enfieldian14 says...9:35am Sat 29 Mar 14

It is a shame that instead of trying to understand the point of others you prefer to make accusations. FYI, I am not a UKIP supporter, but don't let the truth get in the way of your accusations, eh? People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'. It is right and proper that everyone who seeks asylum in this country demonstrates that they are genuinely at risk in their home country. Clearly, this has not happened in this case. If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others. Are we then only to remove people who are a little stupid, a bit unkind, or a touch thoughtless? Instead of being insulting, perhaps you should address these points?

It is a shame that instead of trying to understand the point of others you prefer to make accusations. FYI, I am not a UKIP supporter, but don't let the truth get in the way of your accusations, eh?
People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'. It is right and proper that everyone who seeks asylum in this country demonstrates that they are genuinely at risk in their home country. Clearly, this has not happened in this case. If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others. Are we then only to remove people who are a little stupid, a bit unkind, or a touch thoughtless?
Instead of being insulting, perhaps you should address these points?Enfieldian14

It is a shame that instead of trying to understand the point of others you prefer to make accusations. FYI, I am not a UKIP supporter, but don't let the truth get in the way of your accusations, eh? People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'. It is right and proper that everyone who seeks asylum in this country demonstrates that they are genuinely at risk in their home country. Clearly, this has not happened in this case. If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others. Are we then only to remove people who are a little stupid, a bit unkind, or a touch thoughtless? Instead of being insulting, perhaps you should address these points?

Score: 10

Kim79my says...9:41am Sat 29 Mar 14

richardamullens wrote…

Kim79my wrote…

I am neither a UKIP supporter or a Xenophobe but I am someone who understands the immigration rules. The asylum process is very thorough. It is not only the Home Office who have stated that she does not qualify to stay here but also two Judges, who will be very experienced in Immigration law. She does not qualify for Asylum. If her mother does not want her daughter to return alone, then I'm sure that the Home office would be more than willing to help them all travel back together. It's lovely she has made lots of friends but that really isn't a reason for someone to be allowed to stay in a country they have no legal right to. I would also be grateful if people would stop using the word Deportation. She is not being deported she is being removed. Once removed, she would be able to apply to return to this country. If she was deported she would not.

Yes, it seems that you know the price of everything and the value of nothing

richardamullens, huh? That sentence makes no sense. There are 100s of people in Immigration detention and I would not be surprised if there were not some more "deserving" than Ms Bajeerathi. Do you prose they all be allowed to stay? Or just those that you are aware of because of the media.

[quote][p][bold]richardamullens[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Kim79my[/bold] wrote:
I am neither a UKIP supporter or a Xenophobe but I am someone who understands the immigration rules.
The asylum process is very thorough. It is not only the Home Office who have stated that she does not qualify to stay here but also two Judges, who will be very experienced in Immigration law.
She does not qualify for Asylum. If her mother does not want her daughter to return alone, then I'm sure that the Home office would be more than willing to help them all travel back together.
It's lovely she has made lots of friends but that really isn't a reason for someone to be allowed to stay in a country they have no legal right to. I would also be grateful if people would stop using the word Deportation. She is not being deported she is being removed. Once removed, she would be able to apply to return to this country. If she was deported she would not.[/p][/quote]Yes, it seems that you know the price of everything and the value of nothing[/p][/quote]richardamullens, huh? That sentence makes no sense.
There are 100s of people in Immigration detention and I would not be surprised if there were not some more "deserving" than Ms Bajeerathi. Do you prose they all be allowed to stay? Or just those that you are aware of because of the media.Kim79my

richardamullens wrote…

Kim79my wrote…

I am neither a UKIP supporter or a Xenophobe but I am someone who understands the immigration rules. The asylum process is very thorough. It is not only the Home Office who have stated that she does not qualify to stay here but also two Judges, who will be very experienced in Immigration law. She does not qualify for Asylum. If her mother does not want her daughter to return alone, then I'm sure that the Home office would be more than willing to help them all travel back together. It's lovely she has made lots of friends but that really isn't a reason for someone to be allowed to stay in a country they have no legal right to. I would also be grateful if people would stop using the word Deportation. She is not being deported she is being removed. Once removed, she would be able to apply to return to this country. If she was deported she would not.

Yes, it seems that you know the price of everything and the value of nothing

richardamullens, huh? That sentence makes no sense. There are 100s of people in Immigration detention and I would not be surprised if there were not some more "deserving" than Ms Bajeerathi. Do you prose they all be allowed to stay? Or just those that you are aware of because of the media.

Score: 6

richardamullens says...10:06am Sat 29 Mar 14

Enfieldian14 wrote…

It is a shame that instead of trying to understand the point of others you prefer to make accusations. FYI, I am not a UKIP supporter, but don't let the truth get in the way of your accusations, eh? People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'. It is right and proper that everyone who seeks asylum in this country demonstrates that they are genuinely at risk in their home country. Clearly, this has not happened in this case. If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others. Are we then only to remove people who are a little stupid, a bit unkind, or a touch thoughtless? Instead of being insulting, perhaps you should address these points?

"People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'." That is just your opinion - but I don't share your black and white view of how the world should be. Your's is the GWB view of the world -monochrome and lacking imagination. Nor do I accept "If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others." Why do we deport anyone ? What makes you as a result of an accident of birth eligible to stay here in preference to anyone else ? I utterly reject your dogmatism and certainty as nothing less than prejudice and frankly unpleasantness.

[quote][p][bold]Enfieldian14[/bold] wrote:
It is a shame that instead of trying to understand the point of others you prefer to make accusations. FYI, I am not a UKIP supporter, but don't let the truth get in the way of your accusations, eh?
People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'. It is right and proper that everyone who seeks asylum in this country demonstrates that they are genuinely at risk in their home country. Clearly, this has not happened in this case. If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others. Are we then only to remove people who are a little stupid, a bit unkind, or a touch thoughtless?
Instead of being insulting, perhaps you should address these points?[/p][/quote]"People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'."
That is just your opinion - but I don't share your black and white view of how the world should be. Your's is the GWB view of the world -monochrome and lacking imagination.
Nor do I accept "If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others." Why do we deport anyone ? What makes you as a result of an accident of birth eligible to stay here in preference to anyone else ?
I utterly reject your dogmatism and certainty as nothing less than prejudice and frankly unpleasantness.richardamullens

Enfieldian14 wrote…

It is a shame that instead of trying to understand the point of others you prefer to make accusations. FYI, I am not a UKIP supporter, but don't let the truth get in the way of your accusations, eh? People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'. It is right and proper that everyone who seeks asylum in this country demonstrates that they are genuinely at risk in their home country. Clearly, this has not happened in this case. If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others. Are we then only to remove people who are a little stupid, a bit unkind, or a touch thoughtless? Instead of being insulting, perhaps you should address these points?

"People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'." That is just your opinion - but I don't share your black and white view of how the world should be. Your's is the GWB view of the world -monochrome and lacking imagination. Nor do I accept "If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others." Why do we deport anyone ? What makes you as a result of an accident of birth eligible to stay here in preference to anyone else ? I utterly reject your dogmatism and certainty as nothing less than prejudice and frankly unpleasantness.

Score: -10

richardamullens says...10:10am Sat 29 Mar 14

Kim79my wrote…

richardamullens wrote…

Kim79my wrote…

I am neither a UKIP supporter or a Xenophobe but I am someone who understands the immigration rules. The asylum process is very thorough. It is not only the Home Office who have stated that she does not qualify to stay here but also two Judges, who will be very experienced in Immigration law. She does not qualify for Asylum. If her mother does not want her daughter to return alone, then I'm sure that the Home office would be more than willing to help them all travel back together. It's lovely she has made lots of friends but that really isn't a reason for someone to be allowed to stay in a country they have no legal right to. I would also be grateful if people would stop using the word Deportation. She is not being deported she is being removed. Once removed, she would be able to apply to return to this country. If she was deported she would not.

Yes, it seems that you know the price of everything and the value of nothing

richardamullens, huh? That sentence makes no sense. There are 100s of people in Immigration detention and I would not be surprised if there were not some more "deserving" than Ms Bajeerathi. Do you prose they all be allowed to stay? Or just those that you are aware of because of the media.

Everyone who is here should be allowed to stay, including even you.

[quote][p][bold]Kim79my[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]richardamullens[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Kim79my[/bold] wrote:
I am neither a UKIP supporter or a Xenophobe but I am someone who understands the immigration rules.
The asylum process is very thorough. It is not only the Home Office who have stated that she does not qualify to stay here but also two Judges, who will be very experienced in Immigration law.
She does not qualify for Asylum. If her mother does not want her daughter to return alone, then I'm sure that the Home office would be more than willing to help them all travel back together.
It's lovely she has made lots of friends but that really isn't a reason for someone to be allowed to stay in a country they have no legal right to. I would also be grateful if people would stop using the word Deportation. She is not being deported she is being removed. Once removed, she would be able to apply to return to this country. If she was deported she would not.[/p][/quote]Yes, it seems that you know the price of everything and the value of nothing[/p][/quote]richardamullens, huh? That sentence makes no sense.
There are 100s of people in Immigration detention and I would not be surprised if there were not some more "deserving" than Ms Bajeerathi. Do you prose they all be allowed to stay? Or just those that you are aware of because of the media.[/p][/quote]Everyone who is here should be allowed to stay, including even you.richardamullens

Kim79my wrote…

richardamullens wrote…

Kim79my wrote…

I am neither a UKIP supporter or a Xenophobe but I am someone who understands the immigration rules. The asylum process is very thorough. It is not only the Home Office who have stated that she does not qualify to stay here but also two Judges, who will be very experienced in Immigration law. She does not qualify for Asylum. If her mother does not want her daughter to return alone, then I'm sure that the Home office would be more than willing to help them all travel back together. It's lovely she has made lots of friends but that really isn't a reason for someone to be allowed to stay in a country they have no legal right to. I would also be grateful if people would stop using the word Deportation. She is not being deported she is being removed. Once removed, she would be able to apply to return to this country. If she was deported she would not.

Yes, it seems that you know the price of everything and the value of nothing

richardamullens, huh? That sentence makes no sense. There are 100s of people in Immigration detention and I would not be surprised if there were not some more "deserving" than Ms Bajeerathi. Do you prose they all be allowed to stay? Or just those that you are aware of because of the media.

Everyone who is here should be allowed to stay, including even you.

Score: -4

Enfieldian14 says...10:20am Sat 29 Mar 14

richardamullens wrote…

Enfieldian14 wrote…

It is a shame that instead of trying to understand the point of others you prefer to make accusations. FYI, I am not a UKIP supporter, but don't let the truth get in the way of your accusations, eh? People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'. It is right and proper that everyone who seeks asylum in this country demonstrates that they are genuinely at risk in their home country. Clearly, this has not happened in this case. If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others. Are we then only to remove people who are a little stupid, a bit unkind, or a touch thoughtless? Instead of being insulting, perhaps you should address these points?

"People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'." That is just your opinion - but I don't share your black and white view of how the world should be. Your's is the GWB view of the world -monochrome and lacking imagination. Nor do I accept "If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others." Why do we deport anyone ? What makes you as a result of an accident of birth eligible to stay here in preference to anyone else ? I utterly reject your dogmatism and certainty as nothing less than prejudice and frankly unpleasantness.

Interesting that you don't have a valid, reasoned argument other than appearing to think that anyone and everyone should be permitted to come to this country. We are a small island, do you not think that an open door policy would result in huge over population, with our resources being drained to the point that there is nothing available for anyone? At what point do we say, stop, we're full? Or are you so idealistic that you don't think we will ever be full? On the basis of your comments so far, I reject your views as overly idealistic and liberal.

[quote][p][bold]richardamullens[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Enfieldian14[/bold] wrote:
It is a shame that instead of trying to understand the point of others you prefer to make accusations. FYI, I am not a UKIP supporter, but don't let the truth get in the way of your accusations, eh?
People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'. It is right and proper that everyone who seeks asylum in this country demonstrates that they are genuinely at risk in their home country. Clearly, this has not happened in this case. If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others. Are we then only to remove people who are a little stupid, a bit unkind, or a touch thoughtless?
Instead of being insulting, perhaps you should address these points?[/p][/quote]"People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'."
That is just your opinion - but I don't share your black and white view of how the world should be. Your's is the GWB view of the world -monochrome and lacking imagination.
Nor do I accept "If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others." Why do we deport anyone ? What makes you as a result of an accident of birth eligible to stay here in preference to anyone else ?
I utterly reject your dogmatism and certainty as nothing less than prejudice and frankly unpleasantness.[/p][/quote]Interesting that you don't have a valid, reasoned argument other than appearing to think that anyone and everyone should be permitted to come to this country. We are a small island, do you not think that an open door policy would result in huge over population, with our resources being drained to the point that there is nothing available for anyone? At what point do we say, stop, we're full? Or are you so idealistic that you don't think we will ever be full?
On the basis of your comments so far, I reject your views as overly idealistic and liberal.Enfieldian14

richardamullens wrote…

Enfieldian14 wrote…

It is a shame that instead of trying to understand the point of others you prefer to make accusations. FYI, I am not a UKIP supporter, but don't let the truth get in the way of your accusations, eh? People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'. It is right and proper that everyone who seeks asylum in this country demonstrates that they are genuinely at risk in their home country. Clearly, this has not happened in this case. If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others. Are we then only to remove people who are a little stupid, a bit unkind, or a touch thoughtless? Instead of being insulting, perhaps you should address these points?

"People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'." That is just your opinion - but I don't share your black and white view of how the world should be. Your's is the GWB view of the world -monochrome and lacking imagination. Nor do I accept "If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others." Why do we deport anyone ? What makes you as a result of an accident of birth eligible to stay here in preference to anyone else ? I utterly reject your dogmatism and certainty as nothing less than prejudice and frankly unpleasantness.

Interesting that you don't have a valid, reasoned argument other than appearing to think that anyone and everyone should be permitted to come to this country. We are a small island, do you not think that an open door policy would result in huge over population, with our resources being drained to the point that there is nothing available for anyone? At what point do we say, stop, we're full? Or are you so idealistic that you don't think we will ever be full? On the basis of your comments so far, I reject your views as overly idealistic and liberal.

Score: 7

richardamullens says...10:36am Sat 29 Mar 14

Enfieldian14 wrote…

richardamullens wrote…

Enfieldian14 wrote…

It is a shame that instead of trying to understand the point of others you prefer to make accusations. FYI, I am not a UKIP supporter, but don't let the truth get in the way of your accusations, eh? People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'. It is right and proper that everyone who seeks asylum in this country demonstrates that they are genuinely at risk in their home country. Clearly, this has not happened in this case. If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others. Are we then only to remove people who are a little stupid, a bit unkind, or a touch thoughtless? Instead of being insulting, perhaps you should address these points?

"People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'." That is just your opinion - but I don't share your black and white view of how the world should be. Your's is the GWB view of the world -monochrome and lacking imagination. Nor do I accept "If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others." Why do we deport anyone ? What makes you as a result of an accident of birth eligible to stay here in preference to anyone else ? I utterly reject your dogmatism and certainty as nothing less than prejudice and frankly unpleasantness.

Interesting that you don't have a valid, reasoned argument other than appearing to think that anyone and everyone should be permitted to come to this country. We are a small island, do you not think that an open door policy would result in huge over population, with our resources being drained to the point that there is nothing available for anyone? At what point do we say, stop, we're full? Or are you so idealistic that you don't think we will ever be full? On the basis of your comments so far, I reject your views as overly idealistic and liberal.

I do not think that an open door policy would result in huge overpopulation. The resources of this country are the people here and with more people there would be more resources. It is true that our land is finite but we can build downwards as well as upwards. We could reclaim land from the sea with the spoil of excavations. We need the energy of the immigrant in order to compete with other more agile nations. Britain became great by colonising other nations. That option is no longer open to us - so we need to take action if we are not to descend into irrelevance.

[quote][p][bold]Enfieldian14[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]richardamullens[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Enfieldian14[/bold] wrote:
It is a shame that instead of trying to understand the point of others you prefer to make accusations. FYI, I am not a UKIP supporter, but don't let the truth get in the way of your accusations, eh?
People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'. It is right and proper that everyone who seeks asylum in this country demonstrates that they are genuinely at risk in their home country. Clearly, this has not happened in this case. If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others. Are we then only to remove people who are a little stupid, a bit unkind, or a touch thoughtless?
Instead of being insulting, perhaps you should address these points?[/p][/quote]"People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'."
That is just your opinion - but I don't share your black and white view of how the world should be. Your's is the GWB view of the world -monochrome and lacking imagination.
Nor do I accept "If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others." Why do we deport anyone ? What makes you as a result of an accident of birth eligible to stay here in preference to anyone else ?
I utterly reject your dogmatism and certainty as nothing less than prejudice and frankly unpleasantness.[/p][/quote]Interesting that you don't have a valid, reasoned argument other than appearing to think that anyone and everyone should be permitted to come to this country. We are a small island, do you not think that an open door policy would result in huge over population, with our resources being drained to the point that there is nothing available for anyone? At what point do we say, stop, we're full? Or are you so idealistic that you don't think we will ever be full?
On the basis of your comments so far, I reject your views as overly idealistic and liberal.[/p][/quote]I do not think that an open door policy would result in huge overpopulation. The resources of this country are the people here and with more people there would be more resources.
It is true that our land is finite but we can build downwards as well as upwards. We could reclaim land from the sea with the spoil of excavations. We need the energy of the immigrant in order to compete with other more agile nations. Britain became great by colonising other nations. That option is no longer open to us - so we need to take action if we are not to descend into irrelevance.richardamullens

Enfieldian14 wrote…

richardamullens wrote…

Enfieldian14 wrote…

It is a shame that instead of trying to understand the point of others you prefer to make accusations. FYI, I am not a UKIP supporter, but don't let the truth get in the way of your accusations, eh? People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'. It is right and proper that everyone who seeks asylum in this country demonstrates that they are genuinely at risk in their home country. Clearly, this has not happened in this case. If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others. Are we then only to remove people who are a little stupid, a bit unkind, or a touch thoughtless? Instead of being insulting, perhaps you should address these points?

"People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'." That is just your opinion - but I don't share your black and white view of how the world should be. Your's is the GWB view of the world -monochrome and lacking imagination. Nor do I accept "If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others." Why do we deport anyone ? What makes you as a result of an accident of birth eligible to stay here in preference to anyone else ? I utterly reject your dogmatism and certainty as nothing less than prejudice and frankly unpleasantness.

Interesting that you don't have a valid, reasoned argument other than appearing to think that anyone and everyone should be permitted to come to this country. We are a small island, do you not think that an open door policy would result in huge over population, with our resources being drained to the point that there is nothing available for anyone? At what point do we say, stop, we're full? Or are you so idealistic that you don't think we will ever be full? On the basis of your comments so far, I reject your views as overly idealistic and liberal.

I do not think that an open door policy would result in huge overpopulation. The resources of this country are the people here and with more people there would be more resources. It is true that our land is finite but we can build downwards as well as upwards. We could reclaim land from the sea with the spoil of excavations. We need the energy of the immigrant in order to compete with other more agile nations. Britain became great by colonising other nations. That option is no longer open to us - so we need to take action if we are not to descend into irrelevance.

Score: -6

Enfieldian14 says...10:53am Sat 29 Mar 14

richardamullens wrote…

Enfieldian14 wrote…

richardamullens wrote…

Enfieldian14 wrote…

It is a shame that instead of trying to understand the point of others you prefer to make accusations. FYI, I am not a UKIP supporter, but don't let the truth get in the way of your accusations, eh? People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'. It is right and proper that everyone who seeks asylum in this country demonstrates that they are genuinely at risk in their home country. Clearly, this has not happened in this case. If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others. Are we then only to remove people who are a little stupid, a bit unkind, or a touch thoughtless? Instead of being insulting, perhaps you should address these points?

"People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'." That is just your opinion - but I don't share your black and white view of how the world should be. Your's is the GWB view of the world -monochrome and lacking imagination. Nor do I accept "If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others." Why do we deport anyone ? What makes you as a result of an accident of birth eligible to stay here in preference to anyone else ? I utterly reject your dogmatism and certainty as nothing less than prejudice and frankly unpleasantness.

Interesting that you don't have a valid, reasoned argument other than appearing to think that anyone and everyone should be permitted to come to this country. We are a small island, do you not think that an open door policy would result in huge over population, with our resources being drained to the point that there is nothing available for anyone? At what point do we say, stop, we're full? Or are you so idealistic that you don't think we will ever be full? On the basis of your comments so far, I reject your views as overly idealistic and liberal.

I do not think that an open door policy would result in huge overpopulation. The resources of this country are the people here and with more people there would be more resources. It is true that our land is finite but we can build downwards as well as upwards. We could reclaim land from the sea with the spoil of excavations. We need the energy of the immigrant in order to compete with other more agile nations. Britain became great by colonising other nations. That option is no longer open to us - so we need to take action if we are not to descend into irrelevance.

Right, so no mention of schooling, housing, NHS, jobs, benefits.... You really are one of the most idealistic people I've ever come across. You really live in cloud cuckoo land!

[quote][p][bold]richardamullens[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Enfieldian14[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]richardamullens[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Enfieldian14[/bold] wrote:
It is a shame that instead of trying to understand the point of others you prefer to make accusations. FYI, I am not a UKIP supporter, but don't let the truth get in the way of your accusations, eh?
People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'. It is right and proper that everyone who seeks asylum in this country demonstrates that they are genuinely at risk in their home country. Clearly, this has not happened in this case. If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others. Are we then only to remove people who are a little stupid, a bit unkind, or a touch thoughtless?
Instead of being insulting, perhaps you should address these points?[/p][/quote]"People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'."
That is just your opinion - but I don't share your black and white view of how the world should be. Your's is the GWB view of the world -monochrome and lacking imagination.
Nor do I accept "If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others." Why do we deport anyone ? What makes you as a result of an accident of birth eligible to stay here in preference to anyone else ?
I utterly reject your dogmatism and certainty as nothing less than prejudice and frankly unpleasantness.[/p][/quote]Interesting that you don't have a valid, reasoned argument other than appearing to think that anyone and everyone should be permitted to come to this country. We are a small island, do you not think that an open door policy would result in huge over population, with our resources being drained to the point that there is nothing available for anyone? At what point do we say, stop, we're full? Or are you so idealistic that you don't think we will ever be full?
On the basis of your comments so far, I reject your views as overly idealistic and liberal.[/p][/quote]I do not think that an open door policy would result in huge overpopulation. The resources of this country are the people here and with more people there would be more resources.
It is true that our land is finite but we can build downwards as well as upwards. We could reclaim land from the sea with the spoil of excavations. We need the energy of the immigrant in order to compete with other more agile nations. Britain became great by colonising other nations. That option is no longer open to us - so we need to take action if we are not to descend into irrelevance.[/p][/quote]Right, so no mention of schooling, housing, NHS, jobs, benefits....
You really are one of the most idealistic people I've ever come across. You really live in cloud cuckoo land!Enfieldian14

richardamullens wrote…

Enfieldian14 wrote…

richardamullens wrote…

Enfieldian14 wrote…

It is a shame that instead of trying to understand the point of others you prefer to make accusations. FYI, I am not a UKIP supporter, but don't let the truth get in the way of your accusations, eh? People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'. It is right and proper that everyone who seeks asylum in this country demonstrates that they are genuinely at risk in their home country. Clearly, this has not happened in this case. If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others. Are we then only to remove people who are a little stupid, a bit unkind, or a touch thoughtless? Instead of being insulting, perhaps you should address these points?

"People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'." That is just your opinion - but I don't share your black and white view of how the world should be. Your's is the GWB view of the world -monochrome and lacking imagination. Nor do I accept "If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others." Why do we deport anyone ? What makes you as a result of an accident of birth eligible to stay here in preference to anyone else ? I utterly reject your dogmatism and certainty as nothing less than prejudice and frankly unpleasantness.

Interesting that you don't have a valid, reasoned argument other than appearing to think that anyone and everyone should be permitted to come to this country. We are a small island, do you not think that an open door policy would result in huge over population, with our resources being drained to the point that there is nothing available for anyone? At what point do we say, stop, we're full? Or are you so idealistic that you don't think we will ever be full? On the basis of your comments so far, I reject your views as overly idealistic and liberal.

I do not think that an open door policy would result in huge overpopulation. The resources of this country are the people here and with more people there would be more resources. It is true that our land is finite but we can build downwards as well as upwards. We could reclaim land from the sea with the spoil of excavations. We need the energy of the immigrant in order to compete with other more agile nations. Britain became great by colonising other nations. That option is no longer open to us - so we need to take action if we are not to descend into irrelevance.

Right, so no mention of schooling, housing, NHS, jobs, benefits.... You really are one of the most idealistic people I've ever come across. You really live in cloud cuckoo land!

Score: 6

richardamullens says...11:15am Sat 29 Mar 14

Enfieldian14 wrote…

richardamullens wrote…

Enfieldian14 wrote…

richardamullens wrote…

Enfieldian14 wrote…

It is a shame that instead of trying to understand the point of others you prefer to make accusations. FYI, I am not a UKIP supporter, but don't let the truth get in the way of your accusations, eh? People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'. It is right and proper that everyone who seeks asylum in this country demonstrates that they are genuinely at risk in their home country. Clearly, this has not happened in this case. If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others. Are we then only to remove people who are a little stupid, a bit unkind, or a touch thoughtless? Instead of being insulting, perhaps you should address these points?

"People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'." That is just your opinion - but I don't share your black and white view of how the world should be. Your's is the GWB view of the world -monochrome and lacking imagination. Nor do I accept "If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others." Why do we deport anyone ? What makes you as a result of an accident of birth eligible to stay here in preference to anyone else ? I utterly reject your dogmatism and certainty as nothing less than prejudice and frankly unpleasantness.

Interesting that you don't have a valid, reasoned argument other than appearing to think that anyone and everyone should be permitted to come to this country. We are a small island, do you not think that an open door policy would result in huge over population, with our resources being drained to the point that there is nothing available for anyone? At what point do we say, stop, we're full? Or are you so idealistic that you don't think we will ever be full? On the basis of your comments so far, I reject your views as overly idealistic and liberal.

I do not think that an open door policy would result in huge overpopulation. The resources of this country are the people here and with more people there would be more resources. It is true that our land is finite but we can build downwards as well as upwards. We could reclaim land from the sea with the spoil of excavations. We need the energy of the immigrant in order to compete with other more agile nations. Britain became great by colonising other nations. That option is no longer open to us - so we need to take action if we are not to descend into irrelevance.

Right, so no mention of schooling, housing, NHS, jobs, benefits.... You really are one of the most idealistic people I've ever come across. You really live in cloud cuckoo land!

Housing is mentioned in the above (we can build downwards as well as upwards ...), There are plenty of immigrant doctors in our NHS. We have foreign teachers, immigrants need services too so they create a demand for work as well as providing it. Tax from the employment of immigrants can go to pay benefits. If people like you get their way, the country will slowly sleepwalk its way to oblivion.

[quote][p][bold]Enfieldian14[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]richardamullens[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Enfieldian14[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]richardamullens[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Enfieldian14[/bold] wrote:
It is a shame that instead of trying to understand the point of others you prefer to make accusations. FYI, I am not a UKIP supporter, but don't let the truth get in the way of your accusations, eh?
People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'. It is right and proper that everyone who seeks asylum in this country demonstrates that they are genuinely at risk in their home country. Clearly, this has not happened in this case. If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others. Are we then only to remove people who are a little stupid, a bit unkind, or a touch thoughtless?
Instead of being insulting, perhaps you should address these points?[/p][/quote]"People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'."
That is just your opinion - but I don't share your black and white view of how the world should be. Your's is the GWB view of the world -monochrome and lacking imagination.
Nor do I accept "If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others." Why do we deport anyone ? What makes you as a result of an accident of birth eligible to stay here in preference to anyone else ?
I utterly reject your dogmatism and certainty as nothing less than prejudice and frankly unpleasantness.[/p][/quote]Interesting that you don't have a valid, reasoned argument other than appearing to think that anyone and everyone should be permitted to come to this country. We are a small island, do you not think that an open door policy would result in huge over population, with our resources being drained to the point that there is nothing available for anyone? At what point do we say, stop, we're full? Or are you so idealistic that you don't think we will ever be full?
On the basis of your comments so far, I reject your views as overly idealistic and liberal.[/p][/quote]I do not think that an open door policy would result in huge overpopulation. The resources of this country are the people here and with more people there would be more resources.
It is true that our land is finite but we can build downwards as well as upwards. We could reclaim land from the sea with the spoil of excavations. We need the energy of the immigrant in order to compete with other more agile nations. Britain became great by colonising other nations. That option is no longer open to us - so we need to take action if we are not to descend into irrelevance.[/p][/quote]Right, so no mention of schooling, housing, NHS, jobs, benefits....
You really are one of the most idealistic people I've ever come across. You really live in cloud cuckoo land![/p][/quote]Housing is mentioned in the above (we can build downwards as well as upwards ...), There are plenty of immigrant doctors in our NHS. We have foreign teachers, immigrants need services too so they create a demand for work as well as providing it. Tax from the employment of immigrants can go to pay benefits. If people like you get their way, the country will slowly sleepwalk its way to oblivion.richardamullens

Enfieldian14 wrote…

richardamullens wrote…

Enfieldian14 wrote…

richardamullens wrote…

Enfieldian14 wrote…

It is a shame that instead of trying to understand the point of others you prefer to make accusations. FYI, I am not a UKIP supporter, but don't let the truth get in the way of your accusations, eh? People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'. It is right and proper that everyone who seeks asylum in this country demonstrates that they are genuinely at risk in their home country. Clearly, this has not happened in this case. If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others. Are we then only to remove people who are a little stupid, a bit unkind, or a touch thoughtless? Instead of being insulting, perhaps you should address these points?

"People cannot be allowed to remain in this country because they are 'nice' 'hardworking' or thoughtful'." That is just your opinion - but I don't share your black and white view of how the world should be. Your's is the GWB view of the world -monochrome and lacking imagination. Nor do I accept "If Yashika Bageerathi were allowed to stay based on her ability at school and general niceness it would set a dangerous precedent to others." Why do we deport anyone ? What makes you as a result of an accident of birth eligible to stay here in preference to anyone else ? I utterly reject your dogmatism and certainty as nothing less than prejudice and frankly unpleasantness.

Interesting that you don't have a valid, reasoned argument other than appearing to think that anyone and everyone should be permitted to come to this country. We are a small island, do you not think that an open door policy would result in huge over population, with our resources being drained to the point that there is nothing available for anyone? At what point do we say, stop, we're full? Or are you so idealistic that you don't think we will ever be full? On the basis of your comments so far, I reject your views as overly idealistic and liberal.

I do not think that an open door policy would result in huge overpopulation. The resources of this country are the people here and with more people there would be more resources. It is true that our land is finite but we can build downwards as well as upwards. We could reclaim land from the sea with the spoil of excavations. We need the energy of the immigrant in order to compete with other more agile nations. Britain became great by colonising other nations. That option is no longer open to us - so we need to take action if we are not to descend into irrelevance.

Right, so no mention of schooling, housing, NHS, jobs, benefits.... You really are one of the most idealistic people I've ever come across. You really live in cloud cuckoo land!

Housing is mentioned in the above (we can build downwards as well as upwards ...), There are plenty of immigrant doctors in our NHS. We have foreign teachers, immigrants need services too so they create a demand for work as well as providing it. Tax from the employment of immigrants can go to pay benefits. If people like you get their way, the country will slowly sleepwalk its way to oblivion.

Score: -5

richardamullens says...11:24am Sat 29 Mar 14

We educate children because it makes economic sense. If it made no sense we would not do it. It doesn't matter where the child comes from. The assumption inherent in education is that it is worth it. Having poured education into the child, nothing could be more stupid than to throw away the investment - yet this is what some people are proposing

We educate children because it makes economic sense. If it made no sense we would not do it. It doesn't matter where the child comes from. The assumption inherent in education is that it is worth it.
Having poured education into the child, nothing could be more stupid than to throw away the investment - yet this is what some people are proposingrichardamullens

We educate children because it makes economic sense. If it made no sense we would not do it. It doesn't matter where the child comes from. The assumption inherent in education is that it is worth it. Having poured education into the child, nothing could be more stupid than to throw away the investment - yet this is what some people are proposing

Score: -1

Enfieldian14 says...11:33am Sat 29 Mar 14

Are you seriously suggesting we build underground? Reclaim the sea? Have you seen the flooding this winter? Have you seen what happens when we build on floodplains? You talk of immigrant doctors, but say nothing about the financial pressures the NHS is under - that would get worse if more people come to this country looking for healthcare, childbirth etc. You talk of taxing immigrants wages - what of those that cannot/will not work but still need money to eat, live, need a home, schooling for their children... Our benefits bill is massive at the moment, schools over subscribed. People are waiting months to get a dental appointment - when they can find a dentist to take them on. GP surgeries are over subscribed. The housing stock of the councils is being sold off and there is a housing crisis. Yet your suggestion is we throw open the doors, build downwards (underground?) and welcome everyone with open arms. So what do you suggest we do if we do that and then discover that of the (for arguments sake) 1 million people that have come to the UK in the last year, only half are working. Of those half aren't paying tax because they are working part time, supported by tax credits and HB. So we're actually paying full benefits to half a million extra people. Top up benefits to another 250,000 people. None can afford to buy and because there are no council homes left, they have to rent from private landlords so need tax payer help with their rent. All need NHS treatment and schooling. Not looking great, is it?

Are you seriously suggesting we build underground? Reclaim the sea? Have you seen the flooding this winter? Have you seen what happens when we build on floodplains?
You talk of immigrant doctors, but say nothing about the financial pressures the NHS is under - that would get worse if more people come to this country looking for healthcare, childbirth etc. You talk of taxing immigrants wages - what of those that cannot/will not work but still need money to eat, live, need a home, schooling for their children...
Our benefits bill is massive at the moment, schools over subscribed. People are waiting months to get a dental appointment - when they can find a dentist to take them on. GP surgeries are over subscribed. The housing stock of the councils is being sold off and there is a housing crisis. Yet your suggestion is we throw open the doors, build downwards (underground?) and welcome everyone with open arms. So what do you suggest we do if we do that and then discover that of the (for arguments sake) 1 million people that have come to the UK in the last year, only half are working. Of those half aren't paying tax because they are working part time, supported by tax credits and HB. So we're actually paying full benefits to half a million extra people. Top up benefits to another 250,000 people. None can afford to buy and because there are no council homes left, they have to rent from private landlords so need tax payer help with their rent. All need NHS treatment and schooling.
Not looking great, is it?Enfieldian14

Are you seriously suggesting we build underground? Reclaim the sea? Have you seen the flooding this winter? Have you seen what happens when we build on floodplains? You talk of immigrant doctors, but say nothing about the financial pressures the NHS is under - that would get worse if more people come to this country looking for healthcare, childbirth etc. You talk of taxing immigrants wages - what of those that cannot/will not work but still need money to eat, live, need a home, schooling for their children... Our benefits bill is massive at the moment, schools over subscribed. People are waiting months to get a dental appointment - when they can find a dentist to take them on. GP surgeries are over subscribed. The housing stock of the councils is being sold off and there is a housing crisis. Yet your suggestion is we throw open the doors, build downwards (underground?) and welcome everyone with open arms. So what do you suggest we do if we do that and then discover that of the (for arguments sake) 1 million people that have come to the UK in the last year, only half are working. Of those half aren't paying tax because they are working part time, supported by tax credits and HB. So we're actually paying full benefits to half a million extra people. Top up benefits to another 250,000 people. None can afford to buy and because there are no council homes left, they have to rent from private landlords so need tax payer help with their rent. All need NHS treatment and schooling. Not looking great, is it?

Score: 5

richardamullens says...11:49am Sat 29 Mar 14

Enfieldian14 wrote…

Are you seriously suggesting we build underground? Reclaim the sea? Have you seen the flooding this winter? Have you seen what happens when we build on floodplains? You talk of immigrant doctors, but say nothing about the financial pressures the NHS is under - that would get worse if more people come to this country looking for healthcare, childbirth etc. You talk of taxing immigrants wages - what of those that cannot/will not work but still need money to eat, live, need a home, schooling for their children... Our benefits bill is massive at the moment, schools over subscribed. People are waiting months to get a dental appointment - when they can find a dentist to take them on. GP surgeries are over subscribed. The housing stock of the councils is being sold off and there is a housing crisis. Yet your suggestion is we throw open the doors, build downwards (underground?) and welcome everyone with open arms. So what do you suggest we do if we do that and then discover that of the (for arguments sake) 1 million people that have come to the UK in the last year, only half are working. Of those half aren't paying tax because they are working part time, supported by tax credits and HB. So we're actually paying full benefits to half a million extra people. Top up benefits to another 250,000 people. None can afford to buy and because there are no council homes left, they have to rent from private landlords so need tax payer help with their rent. All need NHS treatment and schooling. Not looking great, is it?

Such negativity. Immigrants are mostly young and don't need doctors so there is ample time to build up the NHS. The vast majority of immigrants come here to work. If schools are oversubscribed let us reopen the ones we closed. Look at problems as opportunities, sweep away regulation and nimbyism. If it were easy it wouldn't be worth doing. It's attitudes like yours that holds the country back.

[quote][p][bold]Enfieldian14[/bold] wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting we build underground? Reclaim the sea? Have you seen the flooding this winter? Have you seen what happens when we build on floodplains?
You talk of immigrant doctors, but say nothing about the financial pressures the NHS is under - that would get worse if more people come to this country looking for healthcare, childbirth etc. You talk of taxing immigrants wages - what of those that cannot/will not work but still need money to eat, live, need a home, schooling for their children...
Our benefits bill is massive at the moment, schools over subscribed. People are waiting months to get a dental appointment - when they can find a dentist to take them on. GP surgeries are over subscribed. The housing stock of the councils is being sold off and there is a housing crisis. Yet your suggestion is we throw open the doors, build downwards (underground?) and welcome everyone with open arms. So what do you suggest we do if we do that and then discover that of the (for arguments sake) 1 million people that have come to the UK in the last year, only half are working. Of those half aren't paying tax because they are working part time, supported by tax credits and HB. So we're actually paying full benefits to half a million extra people. Top up benefits to another 250,000 people. None can afford to buy and because there are no council homes left, they have to rent from private landlords so need tax payer help with their rent. All need NHS treatment and schooling.
Not looking great, is it?[/p][/quote]Such negativity.
Immigrants are mostly young and don't need doctors so there is ample time to build up the NHS.
The vast majority of immigrants come here to work.
If schools are oversubscribed let us reopen the ones we closed.
Look at problems as opportunities, sweep away regulation and nimbyism.
If it were easy it wouldn't be worth doing. It's attitudes like yours that holds the country back.richardamullens

Enfieldian14 wrote…

Are you seriously suggesting we build underground? Reclaim the sea? Have you seen the flooding this winter? Have you seen what happens when we build on floodplains? You talk of immigrant doctors, but say nothing about the financial pressures the NHS is under - that would get worse if more people come to this country looking for healthcare, childbirth etc. You talk of taxing immigrants wages - what of those that cannot/will not work but still need money to eat, live, need a home, schooling for their children... Our benefits bill is massive at the moment, schools over subscribed. People are waiting months to get a dental appointment - when they can find a dentist to take them on. GP surgeries are over subscribed. The housing stock of the councils is being sold off and there is a housing crisis. Yet your suggestion is we throw open the doors, build downwards (underground?) and welcome everyone with open arms. So what do you suggest we do if we do that and then discover that of the (for arguments sake) 1 million people that have come to the UK in the last year, only half are working. Of those half aren't paying tax because they are working part time, supported by tax credits and HB. So we're actually paying full benefits to half a million extra people. Top up benefits to another 250,000 people. None can afford to buy and because there are no council homes left, they have to rent from private landlords so need tax payer help with their rent. All need NHS treatment and schooling. Not looking great, is it?

Such negativity. Immigrants are mostly young and don't need doctors so there is ample time to build up the NHS. The vast majority of immigrants come here to work. If schools are oversubscribed let us reopen the ones we closed. Look at problems as opportunities, sweep away regulation and nimbyism. If it were easy it wouldn't be worth doing. It's attitudes like yours that holds the country back.

Score: -3

richardamullens says...11:49am Sat 29 Mar 14

Enfieldian14 wrote…

Are you seriously suggesting we build underground? Reclaim the sea? Have you seen the flooding this winter? Have you seen what happens when we build on floodplains? You talk of immigrant doctors, but say nothing about the financial pressures the NHS is under - that would get worse if more people come to this country looking for healthcare, childbirth etc. You talk of taxing immigrants wages - what of those that cannot/will not work but still need money to eat, live, need a home, schooling for their children... Our benefits bill is massive at the moment, schools over subscribed. People are waiting months to get a dental appointment - when they can find a dentist to take them on. GP surgeries are over subscribed. The housing stock of the councils is being sold off and there is a housing crisis. Yet your suggestion is we throw open the doors, build downwards (underground?) and welcome everyone with open arms. So what do you suggest we do if we do that and then discover that of the (for arguments sake) 1 million people that have come to the UK in the last year, only half are working. Of those half aren't paying tax because they are working part time, supported by tax credits and HB. So we're actually paying full benefits to half a million extra people. Top up benefits to another 250,000 people. None can afford to buy and because there are no council homes left, they have to rent from private landlords so need tax payer help with their rent. All need NHS treatment and schooling. Not looking great, is it?

Such negativity. Immigrants are mostly young and don't need doctors so there is ample time to build up the NHS. The vast majority of immigrants come here to work. If schools are oversubscribed let us reopen the ones we closed. Look at problems as opportunities, sweep away regulation and nimbyism. If it were easy it wouldn't be worth doing. It's attitudes like yours that holds the country back.

[quote][p][bold]Enfieldian14[/bold] wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting we build underground? Reclaim the sea? Have you seen the flooding this winter? Have you seen what happens when we build on floodplains?
You talk of immigrant doctors, but say nothing about the financial pressures the NHS is under - that would get worse if more people come to this country looking for healthcare, childbirth etc. You talk of taxing immigrants wages - what of those that cannot/will not work but still need money to eat, live, need a home, schooling for their children...
Our benefits bill is massive at the moment, schools over subscribed. People are waiting months to get a dental appointment - when they can find a dentist to take them on. GP surgeries are over subscribed. The housing stock of the councils is being sold off and there is a housing crisis. Yet your suggestion is we throw open the doors, build downwards (underground?) and welcome everyone with open arms. So what do you suggest we do if we do that and then discover that of the (for arguments sake) 1 million people that have come to the UK in the last year, only half are working. Of those half aren't paying tax because they are working part time, supported by tax credits and HB. So we're actually paying full benefits to half a million extra people. Top up benefits to another 250,000 people. None can afford to buy and because there are no council homes left, they have to rent from private landlords so need tax payer help with their rent. All need NHS treatment and schooling.
Not looking great, is it?[/p][/quote]Such negativity.
Immigrants are mostly young and don't need doctors so there is ample time to build up the NHS.
The vast majority of immigrants come here to work.
If schools are oversubscribed let us reopen the ones we closed.
Look at problems as opportunities, sweep away regulation and nimbyism.
If it were easy it wouldn't be worth doing. It's attitudes like yours that holds the country back.richardamullens

Enfieldian14 wrote…

Are you seriously suggesting we build underground? Reclaim the sea? Have you seen the flooding this winter? Have you seen what happens when we build on floodplains? You talk of immigrant doctors, but say nothing about the financial pressures the NHS is under - that would get worse if more people come to this country looking for healthcare, childbirth etc. You talk of taxing immigrants wages - what of those that cannot/will not work but still need money to eat, live, need a home, schooling for their children... Our benefits bill is massive at the moment, schools over subscribed. People are waiting months to get a dental appointment - when they can find a dentist to take them on. GP surgeries are over subscribed. The housing stock of the councils is being sold off and there is a housing crisis. Yet your suggestion is we throw open the doors, build downwards (underground?) and welcome everyone with open arms. So what do you suggest we do if we do that and then discover that of the (for arguments sake) 1 million people that have come to the UK in the last year, only half are working. Of those half aren't paying tax because they are working part time, supported by tax credits and HB. So we're actually paying full benefits to half a million extra people. Top up benefits to another 250,000 people. None can afford to buy and because there are no council homes left, they have to rent from private landlords so need tax payer help with their rent. All need NHS treatment and schooling. Not looking great, is it?

Such negativity. Immigrants are mostly young and don't need doctors so there is ample time to build up the NHS. The vast majority of immigrants come here to work. If schools are oversubscribed let us reopen the ones we closed. Look at problems as opportunities, sweep away regulation and nimbyism. If it were easy it wouldn't be worth doing. It's attitudes like yours that holds the country back.

Score: -3

Enfieldian14 says...12:15pm Sat 29 Mar 14

There is little point in discussing this with you any further. You have an idealistic, utopian view of how the UK could be with no evidence or research to back up your views. All you do is spout nonsense about negativity and attitudes. I'd love the UK to be the ideal you fervently espouse, but it is just that, an ideal. Besides which, the sun is shining and lunch in a peaceful country pub in the warm sunshine is calling!

There is little point in discussing this with you any further. You have an idealistic, utopian view of how the UK could be with no evidence or research to back up your views. All you do is spout nonsense about negativity and attitudes. I'd love the UK to be the ideal you fervently espouse, but it is just that, an ideal.
Besides which, the sun is shining and lunch in a peaceful country pub in the warm sunshine is calling!Enfieldian14

There is little point in discussing this with you any further. You have an idealistic, utopian view of how the UK could be with no evidence or research to back up your views. All you do is spout nonsense about negativity and attitudes. I'd love the UK to be the ideal you fervently espouse, but it is just that, an ideal. Besides which, the sun is shining and lunch in a peaceful country pub in the warm sunshine is calling!

Score: 5

richardamullens says...12:28pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Enfieldian14 wrote…

There is little point in discussing this with you any further. You have an idealistic, utopian view of how the UK could be with no evidence or research to back up your views. All you do is spout nonsense about negativity and attitudes. I'd love the UK to be the ideal you fervently espouse, but it is just that, an ideal. Besides which, the sun is shining and lunch in a peaceful country pub in the warm sunshine is calling!

Bottoms up !

[quote][p][bold]Enfieldian14[/bold] wrote:
There is little point in discussing this with you any further. You have an idealistic, utopian view of how the UK could be with no evidence or research to back up your views. All you do is spout nonsense about negativity and attitudes. I'd love the UK to be the ideal you fervently espouse, but it is just that, an ideal.
Besides which, the sun is shining and lunch in a peaceful country pub in the warm sunshine is calling![/p][/quote]Bottoms up !richardamullens

Enfieldian14 wrote…

There is little point in discussing this with you any further. You have an idealistic, utopian view of how the UK could be with no evidence or research to back up your views. All you do is spout nonsense about negativity and attitudes. I'd love the UK to be the ideal you fervently espouse, but it is just that, an ideal. Besides which, the sun is shining and lunch in a peaceful country pub in the warm sunshine is calling!

Bottoms up !

Score: 0

Kim79my says...1:33pm Sat 29 Mar 14

richardamullens wrote…

We educate children because it makes economic sense. If it made no sense we would not do it. It doesn't matter where the child comes from. The assumption inherent in education is that it is worth it. Having poured education into the child, nothing could be more stupid than to throw away the investment - yet this is what some people are proposing

Yet we haven't poured education into this "child". Ms Bageerathi arrived in 2011 or 2012 (depending on different sources) thus she spent her formative years and most of her education in Mauritius. As for the rest of your points or should I say lack of points, I agree with Enfieldian14's opinion that you are in cuckoo land.

[quote][p][bold]richardamullens[/bold] wrote:
We educate children because it makes economic sense. If it made no sense we would not do it. It doesn't matter where the child comes from. The assumption inherent in education is that it is worth it.
Having poured education into the child, nothing could be more stupid than to throw away the investment - yet this is what some people are proposing[/p][/quote]Yet we haven't poured education into this "child". Ms Bageerathi arrived in 2011 or 2012 (depending on different sources) thus she spent her formative years and most of her education in Mauritius.
As for the rest of your points or should I say lack of points, I agree with Enfieldian14's opinion that you are in cuckoo land.Kim79my

richardamullens wrote…

We educate children because it makes economic sense. If it made no sense we would not do it. It doesn't matter where the child comes from. The assumption inherent in education is that it is worth it. Having poured education into the child, nothing could be more stupid than to throw away the investment - yet this is what some people are proposing

Yet we haven't poured education into this "child". Ms Bageerathi arrived in 2011 or 2012 (depending on different sources) thus she spent her formative years and most of her education in Mauritius. As for the rest of your points or should I say lack of points, I agree with Enfieldian14's opinion that you are in cuckoo land.

Score: 4

Kim79my says...1:36pm Sat 29 Mar 14

richardamullens wrote…

Enfieldian14 wrote…

There is little point in discussing this with you any further. You have an idealistic, utopian view of how the UK could be with no evidence or research to back up your views. All you do is spout nonsense about negativity and attitudes. I'd love the UK to be the ideal you fervently espouse, but it is just that, an ideal. Besides which, the sun is shining and lunch in a peaceful country pub in the warm sunshine is calling!

Bottoms up !

I think Richardamullens has already had a few by his responses. He's either drunk, on drugs or very young.

[quote][p][bold]richardamullens[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Enfieldian14[/bold] wrote:
There is little point in discussing this with you any further. You have an idealistic, utopian view of how the UK could be with no evidence or research to back up your views. All you do is spout nonsense about negativity and attitudes. I'd love the UK to be the ideal you fervently espouse, but it is just that, an ideal.
Besides which, the sun is shining and lunch in a peaceful country pub in the warm sunshine is calling![/p][/quote]Bottoms up ![/p][/quote]I think Richardamullens has already had a few by his responses. He's either drunk, on drugs or very young.Kim79my

richardamullens wrote…

Enfieldian14 wrote…

There is little point in discussing this with you any further. You have an idealistic, utopian view of how the UK could be with no evidence or research to back up your views. All you do is spout nonsense about negativity and attitudes. I'd love the UK to be the ideal you fervently espouse, but it is just that, an ideal. Besides which, the sun is shining and lunch in a peaceful country pub in the warm sunshine is calling!

Bottoms up !

I think Richardamullens has already had a few by his responses. He's either drunk, on drugs or very young.

Score: 3

richardamullens says...2:45pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Kim79my wrote…

richardamullens wrote…

Enfieldian14 wrote…

There is little point in discussing this with you any further. You have an idealistic, utopian view of how the UK could be with no evidence or research to back up your views. All you do is spout nonsense about negativity and attitudes. I'd love the UK to be the ideal you fervently espouse, but it is just that, an ideal. Besides which, the sun is shining and lunch in a peaceful country pub in the warm sunshine is calling!

Bottoms up !

I think Richardamullens has already had a few by his responses. He's either drunk, on drugs or very young.

I'm 65 and you should listen to me because I'm telling you what all the main party leaders actually think but are too cowardly to say. They'll do it anyway as you know while paying lip service to their promises on getting immigration down - though of course it will take longer and will damage the country in the meantime. Remember when Cameron said that Cannabis should be legalised ? Now of course he's sh1t scared of the daily mail. Head over to https://www.change.o rg/en-GB/petitions/t he-rt-hon-theresa-ma y-mp-home-secretary- fightforyashika-stop -this-sixth-form-stu dent-being-deported- alone-she-deserves-a -future and you'll see that there are more than 150 thousand that have signed - impressive for just a few days and I suspect that they are mostly young people who may be voting for the first time in 2015. Young people are not fools and many of their friends aren't white

[quote][p][bold]Kim79my[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]richardamullens[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Enfieldian14[/bold] wrote:
There is little point in discussing this with you any further. You have an idealistic, utopian view of how the UK could be with no evidence or research to back up your views. All you do is spout nonsense about negativity and attitudes. I'd love the UK to be the ideal you fervently espouse, but it is just that, an ideal.
Besides which, the sun is shining and lunch in a peaceful country pub in the warm sunshine is calling![/p][/quote]Bottoms up ![/p][/quote]I think Richardamullens has already had a few by his responses. He's either drunk, on drugs or very young.[/p][/quote]I'm 65 and you should listen to me because I'm telling you what all the main party leaders actually think but are too cowardly to say. They'll do it anyway as you know while paying lip service to their promises on getting immigration down - though of course it will take longer and will damage the country in the meantime. Remember when Cameron said that Cannabis should be legalised ? Now of course he's sh1t scared of the daily mail.
Head over to https://www.change.o
rg/en-GB/petitions/t
he-rt-hon-theresa-ma
y-mp-home-secretary-
fightforyashika-stop
-this-sixth-form-stu
dent-being-deported-
alone-she-deserves-a
-future and you'll see that there are more than 150 thousand that have signed - impressive for just a few days and I suspect that they are mostly young people who may be voting for the first time in 2015. Young people are not fools and many of their friends aren't whiterichardamullens

Kim79my wrote…

richardamullens wrote…

Enfieldian14 wrote…

There is little point in discussing this with you any further. You have an idealistic, utopian view of how the UK could be with no evidence or research to back up your views. All you do is spout nonsense about negativity and attitudes. I'd love the UK to be the ideal you fervently espouse, but it is just that, an ideal. Besides which, the sun is shining and lunch in a peaceful country pub in the warm sunshine is calling!

Bottoms up !

I think Richardamullens has already had a few by his responses. He's either drunk, on drugs or very young.

I'm 65 and you should listen to me because I'm telling you what all the main party leaders actually think but are too cowardly to say. They'll do it anyway as you know while paying lip service to their promises on getting immigration down - though of course it will take longer and will damage the country in the meantime. Remember when Cameron said that Cannabis should be legalised ? Now of course he's sh1t scared of the daily mail. Head over to https://www.change.o rg/en-GB/petitions/t he-rt-hon-theresa-ma y-mp-home-secretary- fightforyashika-stop -this-sixth-form-stu dent-being-deported- alone-she-deserves-a -future and you'll see that there are more than 150 thousand that have signed - impressive for just a few days and I suspect that they are mostly young people who may be voting for the first time in 2015. Young people are not fools and many of their friends aren't white

Score: -2

Kim79my says...3:25pm Sat 29 Mar 14

It's not about colour at all. It's about rules that are in place to protect our country which is already over stretched in every way. I don't have anything against the young lady in question at all or her family. As i do not have a problem if she re enters at a later time to continue her studies, which she will be free to do.

It's not about colour at all. It's about rules that are in place to protect our country which is already over stretched in every way. I don't have anything against the young lady in question at all or her family. As i do not have a problem if she re enters at a later time to continue her studies, which she will be free to do.Kim79my

It's not about colour at all. It's about rules that are in place to protect our country which is already over stretched in every way. I don't have anything against the young lady in question at all or her family. As i do not have a problem if she re enters at a later time to continue her studies, which she will be free to do.

Score: 4

Kim79my says...3:53pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Young people are not fools but they are idealistic. Their opinions will change once they are old enough to pay taxes, have children and think about how things that happen in this country effect them. They might think that it's a good idea to let everyone who would like to live here do so, but I can assure you the majority of those young people will feel differently when they are older.

Young people are not fools but they are idealistic. Their opinions will change once they are old enough to pay taxes, have children and think about how things that happen in this country effect them. They might think that it's a good idea to let everyone who would like to live here do so, but I can assure you the majority of those young people will feel differently when they are older.Kim79my

Young people are not fools but they are idealistic. Their opinions will change once they are old enough to pay taxes, have children and think about how things that happen in this country effect them. They might think that it's a good idea to let everyone who would like to live here do so, but I can assure you the majority of those young people will feel differently when they are older.

Score: 3

richardamullens says...4:24pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Kim79my wrote…

Young people are not fools but they are idealistic. Their opinions will change once they are old enough to pay taxes, have children and think about how things that happen in this country effect them. They might think that it's a good idea to let everyone who would like to live here do so, but I can assure you the majority of those young people will feel differently when they are older.

Supreme arrogance. These young people know that Britain is not threatened by a young girl studying mathematics and they know that the government would ride roughshod over them too at the slightest pretext, nor are they persuaded by the arguments of jobsworths which you appear to be deploying (rules are rules) They are not persuaded either by the technical distinction between being removed and being deported. By your familiarity with these terms and your tenacity in defending the indefensible the suspicion must be that you are employed by home office - a department that is damaging the country by expelling the people that the community wants to remain while those few that are a genuine danger remain at large.

[quote][p][bold]Kim79my[/bold] wrote:
Young people are not fools but they are idealistic. Their opinions will change once they are old enough to pay taxes, have children and think about how things that happen in this country effect them. They might think that it's a good idea to let everyone who would like to live here do so, but I can assure you the majority of those young people will feel differently when they are older.[/p][/quote]Supreme arrogance.
These young people know that Britain is not threatened by a young girl studying mathematics and they know that the government would ride roughshod over them too at the slightest pretext, nor are they persuaded by the arguments of jobsworths which you appear to be deploying (rules are rules)
They are not persuaded either by the technical distinction between being removed and being deported.
By your familiarity with these terms and your tenacity in defending the indefensible the suspicion must be that you are employed by home office - a department that is damaging the country by expelling the people that the community wants to remain while those few that are a genuine danger remain at large.richardamullens

Kim79my wrote…

Young people are not fools but they are idealistic. Their opinions will change once they are old enough to pay taxes, have children and think about how things that happen in this country effect them. They might think that it's a good idea to let everyone who would like to live here do so, but I can assure you the majority of those young people will feel differently when they are older.

Supreme arrogance. These young people know that Britain is not threatened by a young girl studying mathematics and they know that the government would ride roughshod over them too at the slightest pretext, nor are they persuaded by the arguments of jobsworths which you appear to be deploying (rules are rules) They are not persuaded either by the technical distinction between being removed and being deported. By your familiarity with these terms and your tenacity in defending the indefensible the suspicion must be that you are employed by home office - a department that is damaging the country by expelling the people that the community wants to remain while those few that are a genuine danger remain at large.

Score: -2

richardamullens says...5:00pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Kim79my wrote…

I am neither a UKIP supporter or a Xenophobe but I am someone who understands the immigration rules. The asylum process is very thorough. It is not only the Home Office who have stated that she does not qualify to stay here but also two Judges, who will be very experienced in Immigration law. She does not qualify for Asylum. If her mother does not want her daughter to return alone, then I'm sure that the Home office would be more than willing to help them all travel back together. It's lovely she has made lots of friends but that really isn't a reason for someone to be allowed to stay in a country they have no legal right to. I would also be grateful if people would stop using the word Deportation. She is not being deported she is being removed. Once removed, she would be able to apply to return to this country. If she was deported she would not.

"The asylum process is very thorough" Judging by the case of Ekaterina Zatuliveter http://www.siac.trib unals.gov.uk/Documen ts/zatuliveter_subst antive_29Nov11.pdf the work of the home office is slipshod.

[quote][p][bold]Kim79my[/bold] wrote:
I am neither a UKIP supporter or a Xenophobe but I am someone who understands the immigration rules.
The asylum process is very thorough. It is not only the Home Office who have stated that she does not qualify to stay here but also two Judges, who will be very experienced in Immigration law.
She does not qualify for Asylum. If her mother does not want her daughter to return alone, then I'm sure that the Home office would be more than willing to help them all travel back together.
It's lovely she has made lots of friends but that really isn't a reason for someone to be allowed to stay in a country they have no legal right to. I would also be grateful if people would stop using the word Deportation. She is not being deported she is being removed. Once removed, she would be able to apply to return to this country. If she was deported she would not.[/p][/quote]"The asylum process is very thorough"
Judging by the case of Ekaterina Zatuliveter
http://www.siac.trib
unals.gov.uk/Documen
ts/zatuliveter_subst
antive_29Nov11.pdf the work of the home office is slipshod.richardamullens

Kim79my wrote…

I am neither a UKIP supporter or a Xenophobe but I am someone who understands the immigration rules. The asylum process is very thorough. It is not only the Home Office who have stated that she does not qualify to stay here but also two Judges, who will be very experienced in Immigration law. She does not qualify for Asylum. If her mother does not want her daughter to return alone, then I'm sure that the Home office would be more than willing to help them all travel back together. It's lovely she has made lots of friends but that really isn't a reason for someone to be allowed to stay in a country they have no legal right to. I would also be grateful if people would stop using the word Deportation. She is not being deported she is being removed. Once removed, she would be able to apply to return to this country. If she was deported she would not.

"The asylum process is very thorough" Judging by the case of Ekaterina Zatuliveter http://www.siac.trib unals.gov.uk/Documen ts/zatuliveter_subst antive_29Nov11.pdf the work of the home office is slipshod.

Score: 2

Kim79my says...5:02pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Completely wrong, I'm a mother. It's not arrogance it is realism. I am not old enough to have forgotten what the ideals of youth are. My thinking was different when I was young, as were my priorities. Not on all subjects but I could quite see myself getting carried away with the "fight to save a young girl" when I was 18. Now I'm old enough to know she used deception to get here and is from a country that is of no danger. Your ideas are unrealistic and a little bit crazy but they have given me a chuckle. My husband particularly found your suggestion that we live underground amusing, although he is reluctant to be first on the list for one of these properties.

Completely wrong, I'm a mother. It's not arrogance it is realism. I am not old enough to have forgotten what the ideals of youth are. My thinking was different when I was young, as were my priorities. Not on all subjects but I could quite see myself getting carried away with the "fight to save a young girl" when I was 18. Now I'm old enough to know she used deception to get here and is from a country that is of no danger.
Your ideas are unrealistic and a little bit crazy but they have given me a chuckle. My husband particularly found your suggestion that we live underground amusing, although he is reluctant to be first on the list for one of these properties.Kim79my

Completely wrong, I'm a mother. It's not arrogance it is realism. I am not old enough to have forgotten what the ideals of youth are. My thinking was different when I was young, as were my priorities. Not on all subjects but I could quite see myself getting carried away with the "fight to save a young girl" when I was 18. Now I'm old enough to know she used deception to get here and is from a country that is of no danger. Your ideas are unrealistic and a little bit crazy but they have given me a chuckle. My husband particularly found your suggestion that we live underground amusing, although he is reluctant to be first on the list for one of these properties.

Score: 3

Kim79my says...5:10pm Sat 29 Mar 14

I'm confused, Ekaterina Zatuliveter did not claim asylum and has not been through the asylum process?

I'm confused, Ekaterina Zatuliveter did not claim asylum and has not been through the asylum process?Kim79my

I'm confused, Ekaterina Zatuliveter did not claim asylum and has not been through the asylum process?

Score: 0

richardamullens says...5:10pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Kim79my wrote…

Completely wrong, I'm a mother. It's not arrogance it is realism. I am not old enough to have forgotten what the ideals of youth are. My thinking was different when I was young, as were my priorities. Not on all subjects but I could quite see myself getting carried away with the "fight to save a young girl" when I was 18. Now I'm old enough to know she used deception to get here and is from a country that is of no danger. Your ideas are unrealistic and a little bit crazy but they have given me a chuckle. My husband particularly found your suggestion that we live underground amusing, although he is reluctant to be first on the list for one of these properties.

The streets of Belgravia are being burrowed by the rich who are excavating swimming pools under their residences.

[quote][p][bold]Kim79my[/bold] wrote:
Completely wrong, I'm a mother. It's not arrogance it is realism. I am not old enough to have forgotten what the ideals of youth are. My thinking was different when I was young, as were my priorities. Not on all subjects but I could quite see myself getting carried away with the "fight to save a young girl" when I was 18. Now I'm old enough to know she used deception to get here and is from a country that is of no danger.
Your ideas are unrealistic and a little bit crazy but they have given me a chuckle. My husband particularly found your suggestion that we live underground amusing, although he is reluctant to be first on the list for one of these properties.[/p][/quote]The streets of Belgravia are being burrowed by the rich who are excavating swimming pools under their residences.richardamullens

Kim79my wrote…

Completely wrong, I'm a mother. It's not arrogance it is realism. I am not old enough to have forgotten what the ideals of youth are. My thinking was different when I was young, as were my priorities. Not on all subjects but I could quite see myself getting carried away with the "fight to save a young girl" when I was 18. Now I'm old enough to know she used deception to get here and is from a country that is of no danger. Your ideas are unrealistic and a little bit crazy but they have given me a chuckle. My husband particularly found your suggestion that we live underground amusing, although he is reluctant to be first on the list for one of these properties.

The streets of Belgravia are being burrowed by the rich who are excavating swimming pools under their residences.

Score: -1

richardamullens says...5:36pm Sat 29 Mar 14

Kim79my wrote…

I'm confused, Ekaterina Zatuliveter did not claim asylum and has not been through the asylum process?

The Home Office wanted to throw her out on trumped up charge of espionage. It is true that she did not claim asylum but the standard of analysis deployed by the home office in that case was lamentably poor. Here again, having made an error of judgement they are once again digging in their heels. One must imagine that they did not want this furore so one is forced to conclude that, once again, they screwed up and have egg on their face. My own opinion is that this whole immigration thing is a scam whose main purpose is to give work to the legal profession at the taxpayer's expense. There is also the case of Judge Mohammed Ilyas Khan in the case of the Brazilian cleaner to throw cold water on the trustworthyness and competence of immigration judges.

[quote][p][bold]Kim79my[/bold] wrote:
I'm confused, Ekaterina Zatuliveter did not claim asylum and has not been through the asylum process?[/p][/quote]The Home Office wanted to throw her out on trumped up charge of espionage.
It is true that she did not claim asylum but the standard of analysis deployed by the home office in that case was lamentably poor.
Here again, having made an error of judgement they are once again digging in their heels. One must imagine that they did not want this furore so one is forced to conclude that, once again, they screwed up and have egg on their face.
My own opinion is that this whole immigration thing is a scam whose main purpose is to give work to the legal profession at the taxpayer's expense.
There is also the case of Judge Mohammed Ilyas Khan in the case of the Brazilian cleaner to throw cold water on the trustworthyness and competence of immigration judges.richardamullens

Kim79my wrote…

I'm confused, Ekaterina Zatuliveter did not claim asylum and has not been through the asylum process?

The Home Office wanted to throw her out on trumped up charge of espionage. It is true that she did not claim asylum but the standard of analysis deployed by the home office in that case was lamentably poor. Here again, having made an error of judgement they are once again digging in their heels. One must imagine that they did not want this furore so one is forced to conclude that, once again, they screwed up and have egg on their face. My own opinion is that this whole immigration thing is a scam whose main purpose is to give work to the legal profession at the taxpayer's expense. There is also the case of Judge Mohammed Ilyas Khan in the case of the Brazilian cleaner to throw cold water on the trustworthyness and competence of immigration judges.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standardards Organisations's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a compaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here